Status
Not open for further replies.

Nolonar

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2013
137
23
18,685
0
Looking forward to the day 20 inch 8k screens become standard.
Maybe then we'll be able to enjoy alias-free games (assuming they run at native resolution) without having to use AA?
 

Nolonar

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2013
137
23
18,685
0
Well, when I said "become standard", I was thinking about ~200$.
Do mainstream screens really have to be that much more expensive?
 

maxiim

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2009
957
0
19,360
162


Mainstream? No, certainly not, but I just picked up a PB287Q for 500$ and its well worth it imo, when 4k is available for those prices I'll look into it, till then its not even worthy of time unless its for people who need the screen real(business) estate or those with more money than sense
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
780
0
18,990
1
I release this is newer tech, but seriously 1080p has been standard for the last what 5-10 years they had plenty of time to increase resolution size in that time period.

These monitors should all ready be priced in the $200 range frankly especially considering the price fixing the LCD monitor makers were found guilty of consumers got scroogled and trust me many of us haven't forgotten these can't be that much more expensive and difficult to manufacturer.
 
G

Guest

Guest
4096x2160 is not 16:9, it's 1.9:1. To get 1.78:1 (16:9) you would need narrower resolution, 3840x2160.
 
G

Guest

Guest

Yeah, I tried to look up what's the aspect ratio of 4096x2160, but 256:135 sounded too... Long?
 
A co-worker has a 21:9 monitor, mostly for SAP and Excel spreadsheets that require dozens of columns of data. It works for that, but the vertical depth is lacking compared to my 30" 2560x1600 16:10. It's a tradeoff. I can see where this would come in handy for gaming, watching movies (made in that format), and whatnot, but it depends on how you use your monitor at work in a "professional" environment. I prefer to have more vertical space for reading documents (and emails), programming windows that are open for coding, etc.
 

somebodyspecial

Honorable
Sep 20, 2012
1,459
0
11,310
20
Call me when you get back to 16:10 :) Wider is only better if it's on my car. :) While you're at it make it illegal to show a black bar on my TV anywhere for any reason. Also (LOL, yeah got more wishes), if you want my money for any TV season etc in the future, put a SEASON on bluray instead of 5-7 dvd's with crap 480p. Why does netflix show me 720 or 1080p but amazon etc sells the same show ONLY in dvd on tons of discs?

How hard is it to sell me the HD version or at least put 5 dvd's on a bluray saving me craploads of space from discs. If you force customers to do this themselves you shouldn't be surprised when they sell the 5-7 dvd season a second after they merge them to bluray. They now have two copies of the same show, and all they wanted was FEWER discs or HD. If you merge the dvd's to a bluray, just leave them untouched (no need to squish SD vids, when 5 fit on one disc easily).

I have no need for anything but 16:10 monitors unless NONE are available when I buy next year. I understand how this works on an IT helpdesk (we have wide needs with spreadsheets etc of lots of data) etc, but on the web WIDE just sucks. Most pages are made for 1024x768 (you can zoom it, but that often doesn't produce good results even in full page zoom). We need more height on the web. If I full zoom a 1024x768 page on my 1920x1200 monitor I end up with a very short page top to bottom already, never mind the HUGE complaints I'd have on an even WIDER screen. No thanks pal.

Only at work. At home TALLER is better ;)
 

chicofehr

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2012
538
0
18,990
2
Just checked and the 30" 2560x1600 monitors are still in the $900-1500 price range from the big name brands. They need to come down in price before 4k will :(
 

cats_Paw

Distinguished
Considering prices and depreciation, im guessing ill buy one of those in 5 years from now.
Took me 5 years to get a 300 EURO 32 inch flat TV, so...

Funny thing is, some tablets with higher than FULL HD resolution are cheaper than Monitors over FULL HD resolution.
 

magicandy

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2008
295
0
18,780
0
Anyone hoping for these to ever be at average monitor prices need to get a reality check. The 30" monitor market (that's monitor, not TV) has always and probably will always be reserved for the high end $1000+ enthusiast and enterprise market. When they start showing off 20" 4k monitors, than you can start getting your hopes up for normalcy.

1080p took nearly 7 years from its introduction to high end consumers to finally break through into the low cost monitor market. Hate to burst your bubble but it's going to be a long wait since 4k is currently where 1080p was at in 2004.
 

zambutu

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
81
0
18,630
0
Unless that girl is a miniature, that 21:9 screen does look to have some decent vertical. If its at least as tall and a regular 27" screen then this will more than make up for the last 29" version that looked so squashed
 

soldier44

Honorable
May 30, 2013
443
0
10,810
6
21:9 no thanks. 21:10 like my 30 inch 2560 x 1600 one will do me fine, and under $1500 for a 4K. Gaming on my 30 inch for over 3 years now and there is no subsitute.
 

southernshark

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2009
1,014
4
19,295
1
They are already making 24" 4k monitors. And of course the iPad has 9.8" 4k monitor. So it won't be long before we see a 27" 4k monitor.

I concur with others who want to see a 16:10 ratio though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY